8 min read
We’ve all come across the concept of a prototype in one way or another. Many IT professionals are also familiar with the term MVP (Minimum Viable Product) — and some have even used it directly in their work. Today, we’ll explore these concepts, their historical predecessors, and the psychological traps that may await those who adopt them uncritically.
🏛️ Historical Origins
In Ancient Rome, prototyping and MVP-like thinking were widely used in military and engineering practices. The Romans often built temporary fortifications — known as castra — to protect their armies during campaigns. These structures weren’t perfect, but they were functional enough to meet essential needs for safety and survival. Over time, if a camp became permanent, it could be rebuilt or enhanced for long-term use.
In Ancient Greece, MVP-style approaches were applied to the construction of temples and public buildings. Structures like the Parthenon often began with a simple framework that served religious or social functions. If they proved effective, these buildings were later expanded or refined. This architectural evolution — from minimal to monumental — allowed the Greeks to adapt to changing societal needs and resources.
In early Russian settlements, a similar pattern emerged. Many cities began as small, strategically placed communities — near rivers, trade routes, or on elevated ground. Initial fortifications were made of wood, a material that was accessible and easy to work with. Earthen mounds and ditches added extra defense. As cities grew and threats increased, wooden walls were gradually replaced with stone fortresses, which were more durable but also more expensive and required skilled labor (often brought in from other regions). Eventually, key cities developed citadels or castles — highly fortified centers that housed rulers, troops, storage, and temples, and served as the final line of defense.
These historical examples show that prototyping — building something basic but functional to test or survive — has long been a part of human progress.
🧠 Psychological Contradictions
Throughout history, the prototype-first mindset has been a natural and pragmatic approach across cultures — in architecture, governance, technology, and beyond. However, while technology and infrastructure evolved, so did social and religious systems.
The rise of monotheistic religions introduced a different psychological model. These systems, often highly dogmatic, defined strict rules for believers, rituals, and institutions — leaving little room for flexibility or experimentation. In spiritual life, there was no MVP: only the “true” way was acceptable.
This led to a subconscious contradiction in many people. On one hand, prototyping was embraced in everyday and professional life. On the other, it was discouraged in matters of belief and identity. Over centuries, this inner conflict became deeply embedded in cultures through education and tradition.
Even today, many feel ambivalent about prototyping. It’s a logical and effective approach — yet some perceive it as a half-measure, something incomplete or inferior. This emotional resistance, rooted in historical psychology, still affects how people approach iteration and innovation.
Classic Definitions: Prototype vs. MVP
To understand how modern products are built, we need to clearly define two key concepts: the Prototype and the Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Though they may seem similar, they serve different purposes at different stages of product development.
🧪 What is a Prototype?
A prototype is an early, often incomplete version of a product created to visualize, test, and evaluate an idea or concept. It helps validate design assumptions and user flows before full-scale development begins.
🔍 Key Characteristics of a Prototype:
-
Incomplete Functionality: A prototype might not include all features or be fully functional — its main goal is to demonstrate the concept.
-
Design & Interface Focus: Prototypes are often used to visualize the look and feel of the product and test its usability.
-
Concept Testing: They allow teams to experiment with ideas, identify flaws early, and gather preliminary feedback.
-
Rapid Iteration: Prototypes are built quickly and cheaply, enabling fast validation of multiple approaches.
-
Draft Version: A prototype is a rough draft, and the final product may differ significantly after several rounds of refinement.
🚀 What is an MVP?
A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is the first version of a product that includes just enough features to solve a core user problem and collect meaningful feedback. MVPs help teams test product-market fit with minimal cost and risk before committing to full development.
📌 Key Characteristics of an MVP:
-
Essential Functionality Only: It includes only the most important features needed to solve a specific user problem.
-
Fully Functional: Unlike a prototype, an MVP is a working product — users can interact with it in a real environment.
-
Quick Market Launch: MVPs are built and launched as quickly as possible to get the product into users’ hands early.
-
Feedback-Oriented: The primary goal is to collect real user feedback to guide future iterations and features.
-
Cost-Effective: MVPs are designed to minimize time and resources, reducing financial and operational risks.
The Difference Between a Prototype and an MVP It’s easy to see that an MVP is essentially a specialized type of prototype. Both serve as early-stage versions of a product. However, the MVP must be publicly released to real users in order to gather feedback and validate the core value proposition. It must be a fully functional version (even if minimal) that addresses a real user need.
In contrast, a prototype does not need to be publicly accessible and may focus on just one or a few specific parts of the final solution.
Example: If you’re building a house, then a structure with walls, a roof, basic infrastructure, the cheapest tile flooring, a toilet, a shower, and a mattress on the floor — that’s an MVP. A schematic layout on a website or a basic building with only walls — that’s a prototype.
Common Pitfalls in Using Prototypes and MVPs
Besides the psychological contradictions we discussed earlier, there are two major practical problems I’ve seen repeatedly when it comes to prototypes and MVPs in real-world product development.
-
Defining MVP or Prototype After the Fact One of the most frequent issues in IT projects is the tendency to define the MVP after development is complete, rather than up front. MVPs and prototypes should have clearly scoped boundaries and functionality set in advance.
But in practice, as development progresses and challenges arise — technical limitations, time constraints, team burnout — features are cut, the target audience is narrowed, supported platforms reduced, and so on. Whatever is left at the end is then labeled an MVP, and reported as such.
As one of my colleagues at a top-10 Russian tech company bluntly put it:
“Any piece of crap we manage to finish is called an MVP.”
This mindset is harmful. It undermines the purpose of MVPs and prototypes, creates unrealistic expectations, damages trust, and distorts data-driven decision-making — particularly when it comes to things like A/B testing or performance analysis.
A responsible product leader should acknowledge deviations from the original plan, and then either add resources to get back on track or pause the project to reevaluate the entire product vision.
-
Rising Baseline Expectations The second major issue is that user expectations are much higher now than they were even a few years ago. The tech industry is maturing rapidly. Launching a barebones MVP — something that may have passed as “viable” a decade ago — often just doesn’t cut it anymore.
For example, a dating app MVP in the early 2010s could be a basic web interface with three filters. Today, that would be a non-starter. Users are accustomed to sleek, feature-rich, intuitive interfaces. Offering anything less may damage your product’s image and brand perception from the outset.
Unless you're launching in a genuine Blue Ocean market, where no competition exists, you likely can’t afford to skimp on usability or core functionality. Regulatory expectations have also increased — such as data privacy laws like GDPR or Russia’s Federal Law No. 152, which must be implemented in full, even in an MVP. You can’t legally roll out partial compliance.
As a result, MVPs are becoming increasingly complex — and more expensive — to build. In the future, this may lead teams to favor internal prototypes or limited-access beta releases over public MVPs.
Final Thoughts
Prototyping and MVPs are proven strategies for building complex products in iterative phases. However, their scope and purpose must be defined before development starts — and those boundaries must be respected.
In some markets or industries, launching an MVP may no longer be feasible because the minimum requirements for success have become too high. In such cases, using internal prototypes and controlled pilot testing may be a more effective path forward.